SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMIT versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1398 · Decided: 21-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1398 : 2025 INSC 521
Sumitraben Singabhai Gamit 
v. 
State of Gujarat & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5095 of 2025)
21 April 2025
[Dipankar Datta and Manmohan* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The question involved is the interpretation of proviso to Section 
26(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in 
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 
(“RFCTLARR Act, 2013”) in the context of the date that is relevant 
for determining the market value of the land being acquired.
Headnotes†
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – 
Relevant date for determining the market value for the land 
sought be acquired – Proviso to Section 26(1) – Legislative 
scheme and legislative intent:
Held: The use of the word “shall” in Section 26(1) proviso is reflective 
of the legislative mandate that Section 11 Notification is the date 
for determination of the compensation – The legislative intent is to 
ensure that the land owners receive fair compensation reflective 
of the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition. [Para 9]
“Legislative intent is to ensure that the land owners receive fair 
compensation reflective of the market value prevailing at the time 
of acquisition by fixing the date of 01st January, 2014 as the date 
for determination of market value, the impugned order deprives 
the Appellant of compensation at the 2023 rates, which must be 
considerably higher. [Para 10]
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Whether the High Court was right in 
holding that the date for determination of market value is the 
date of commencement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013:
Held: The legislative scheme does not give discretion to the Courts 
to select a date for valuation – RFCTLARR Act, 2013 expressly 
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
1399
Sumitraben Singabhai Gamit v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
mandates that compensation/valuation must be determined as of 
the date of Notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 
2013 – The date of enactment of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 i.e. 01st 
January, 2014 has no relevance to fresh acquisition initiated under 
the statute, it is only relevant for land acquisition proceedings 
had been initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and 
where no award had been made before the enforcement of the 
RFCTLARR Act, 2013. [Paras 11-12]
List of Acts
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
List of Keywords
Determination of market value; Legislative intent; Date of enactment.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5095 Of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2024 of the High Court 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 20392 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms. Poonam Mehta, Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, 
Ms. Prina Sharma, Anshuman Srivastava.
Adv. for the Respondents:
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Manmohan, J
1.	
The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment 
and final order dated 21st August, 2024 passed by the High Court of 
Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 20392 of 2023.
2.	
Ms. Aastha Mehta, learned counsel for the Appellant stated that 
the High Court had erroneously held that the date for determination 
1400
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of market value of yet to be acquired He-0-11-41 sq. meters land 
of Survey No.119 shall be 01st January, 2014 i.e., the date of 
commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency 
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘RFCTLARR Act, 2013’) instead of 
the date on which acquisition notification is issued as prescribed in 
proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
3.	
She stated that the Appellant is the owner of Revenue Block No.119 
(new Revenue Block No.126), situated at village Moje Sarkuva, 
Taluka Vyara, District Tapi, measuring He-0-36-87 sq. meters (total 
area). She further stated that out of this land, an area measuring 
He-0-17-84 sq. meters had been acquired earlier for the purpose 
of constructing the Ukai High Level Cantor Canal.  She, however, 
emphasised that an additional portion of He-0-11-41 sq. meters 
had been utilized without carrying out any acquisition proceeding 
or payment of compensation.
4.	
She stated that the High Court directed the State of Gujarat to file 
an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.